don't ask, don't tell. no, really - don't.

The conventional thinking is that Bill Clinton started "don't ask, don't tell."  In fact, many in the military were already relying on it -- Clinton just made it official policy.  Since gays were never allowed to "tell," the only thing "don't ask, don't tell" changed was that it prohibited "asking."  And that's not exactly a bad thing.

Long before "don't ask, don't tell," I remember working with a gay flight surgeon, gay yeomen, gay aircraft mechanics, gay mess-cooks, and gay hospital corpsmen.  Sometimes I could tell, but more often I had to be told by someone else.  It was rarely the big deal that the media makes it out to be.

I remember a story of two of my squadron-mates running into each other at a gay club.  They asked each other, "What are you doing here?"  Before this, I hadn't known that either one of them was gay -- apparently even they can't always tell.  But the really interesting thing is that the story made its way around the command, and everybody who heard it thought it was funny.  There was no witch hunt.  This was in the eighties, years before "don't ask, don't tell."

Homosexuality was never an issue until it offended somebody.  It didn't get reported unless someone was made uncomfortable by witnessing homosexual behavior, or more rarely, if a homosexual suddenly decided to "come out of the closet." 

I never heard of anybody being accused of "being gay."  Not even people who were so stereotypically flamboyant in their mannerisms that you'd have been surprised if they weren't gay.  And "don't ask" pretty much took care of that unlikelihood.

It's true that there used to be some suspiciously homophobic individuals who made an unusually enthusiastic effort to rid the ranks of gays.  And you can bet that we all wondered if, deep down inside, these individuals were overcompensating for something.  In any event, "don't ask, don't tell" put an end to that cruelty.

But it hadn't always gone like that.  I remember a weatherman who was ordered to remove makeup.  Nobody "asked" him anything further.  Nobody persecuted him.  But wearing makeup was close enough to "telling" that he was basically ordered, well, to keep it to himself.  Don't tell.

Today, I work in corporate America.  I work with some gay people.  At least I think I work with some gay people -- the truth is that I never ask, and, just as politely, they never tell.  In most cases, I'd have never guessed on my own if others hadn't told me.

The gays in corporate America aren't open about it.  If there's some racy talk, these tend to be folks who abstain.  When there are family events, they're the people who bring "a friend."  Nobody ever inquires about their personal relationships, and they never offer any information.  You may recognize the code of conduct at work here.

It could be career-limiting to come out of the closet in corporate America.  Guys go a little further if they don't wear makeup.  You wouldn't want to offend anyone at the company Christmas party by snuggling a little too closely with your "roommate."  Merely being gay means nothing.  But projecting gay -- that makes a lot of straight people unnecessarily uneasy.

My point is that being gay and acting gay are two different things.  Acting gay has more serious professional implications than merely being gay.  That's how it is in the real world, and under "don't ask, don't tell," that's also how it is in the military.

That said, you have to wonder about the agenda of those who'd like to end "don't ask, don't tell."  It scares me.  Not "scared" as in homophobic, but scared for all the normal, socially-conservative folks who would have to face, on a daily basis, not shipmates who simply are gay, but rather shipmates who act gay.  Gay activists already know there's no asking.  They're looking for permission to tell.

Ever seen pictures of the "Gay Day" parade at Disneyworld?  Trust me, you don't want to take your kids to Orlando that week.  Let's just call it "telling," in a don't-ask-don't-tell sort of way.  I'm happy to be able to say that I don't have to work with any of those people.  Is that hate?  No -- it's disgust.  But end "don't ask, don't tell," and there are plenty of people who are going to be subject to that sort of display on a regular basis -- and completely unable -- by law -- to escape it, to forbid it, or to even express their discomfort.

"Don't ask, don't tell" works.  We never asked -- even when we could -- because, quite frankly, we'd just as soon not know.  Why on earth do some people insist on telling?

Comments

[TQ]

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, no one ought to be talking about their sexual proclivities at work. If you have a foot fetish or if you and your wife are swingers, that's great, but don't tell people at work. Homosexual sex isn't really any different so far as I'm concerned. It's something you do in the privacy of your own home and it ought to stay there. On the other hand, people ought to feel free to bring their same-sex significant other to say, work social functions -- just as heterosexuals don't think twice about bringing spouses to those functions. As long as they're not having inappropriate displays of public affection (I mean it would be inappropriate for a straight married couple to make out at a work function), no big deal. Oh, that's your boyfriend? Nice to meet you. I don't think the fact that someone has a same-sex significant other should fall into a "don't tell" policy. That they're cruising gay clubs Friday night to get laid, yeah, I don't really need to know that. But again, I don't need to know that Bob in accounting is going to the swingers club with his wife Friday night.

A sound policy, which all places of work already have, is don't talk about sex at work. A fair policy is that you can mention that you have a relationship at work. The gender makeup of said relationship is totally irrelevant. Professional behavior is what matters--people's sexual particulars are irrelevant. Insofar as someone has to fear losing their job because they have a same-sex partner, the law is unfairly discriminatory. As you pointed out, it isn't really an issue for the vast majority of people so long as no one makes a big deal out of it. Again, actively telling people you like to have gay sex is akin to actively telling people you have a foot fetish or you're a swinger. Casually mentioning a same-sex relationship is a non-issue. So simply make it clear that the particulars of your sex life stay out of the workplace, but that the military does not discriminate on who you have relationships with, nor the kind, so long as you don't get into the private aspects of said relationship.

More troubling to me by far is the recently passed extension of the hate crimes legislation. This legislation makes the particulars of your sexuality very important, to the point that relatively rare sexual fetishists are worth more under the law than common heterosexual individuals. So a crime against someone who happens to be gay is worse than against someone who happens to be heterosexual. Thus we lose equal protection under the law. Moreover, a friend of mine who read the bill told me that it gives protection to pedophiles and beastophiles. So while it is illegal to have sex with children and animals, if you attack someone for having sex with your child or animal, you are committing a crime now against a protected class. Really. It is that sort of thing that demonstrates to me that society has gone off the cliff. I mean this naturally opens the door to pedophiles arguing that they're discriminated against and that they ought to legally be able to have sex with children (which, as I understand it, is more or less the position of Obama's "safe schools czar").

It is the elevation of sexual particulars to having great importance that troubles me. Being attracted to the same sex is about as interesting as having brown hair, or being of Chinese descent. But the elevation of being "Gay" as something special is troublesome and ridiculous (much in the same way that being "Black" or "Hispanic" or some other trivial aspect of your identity). Once we accept everyone who is not the most common phenotype is special, then we're soon going to be having capital P "Pedophiles" as an accepted special identity.

[S Harling]

Personally, I don't think anyone should be talking about their personal sexual peccadillos at work. I've had heteros and homos both talk about such, and found it unprofessional and offensive.

However, I think that "don't ask, don't tell" is penalizing just one group - homosexuals. I wouldn't have a problem if the rule were a more general "Don't talk about sex - period" act. I do think it anti-American that someone who "comes out of the closet" in the military can be discharged just for making a statement of their sexual preferences.

[John Galt]

It isn't about discharging people for making a statement of their preferences. It's about maintaining an atmosphere where people can work together comfortably in close quarters. And you do that by removing (not penalizing) individuals who make other people uncomfortable.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the only thing that protects ordinary Americans from in-your-face displays of gay-pride social engineering.

If you can think of another policy that better protects regular folks from conduct they wouldn't have to tolerate in the private sector, I'd like to hear it. But the military is not a captive audience for advancing the gay agenda -- which is in fact the goal of those seeking to end "don't ask, don't tell."

[S Harling]

But, my understanding is that a soldier can stand up and talk about the raunchy hetero sexual experience that they had the night before, and not face the same penalty (discharge) as someone who simply says "I'm gay".

I'm not interested in the military being a gay-rights lab - heck I don't want my teenagers who are looking at military service being exposed to that, but I don't see the justice in penalizing one group and not another for what could be simply a free-speech issue (again, assuming the minimum is a statement of "I'm gay")

If we're going to infringe on the rights of soldiers to openly discuss sexual matters (be it mild statements, or detailed offensive speech), it would seem to me fairer to do so across the board.

[John Galt]

"But, my understanding is that a soldier can stand up and talk about the raunchy hetero sexual experience that they had the night before, and not face the same penalty (discharge) as someone who simply says "I'm gay"."

It's not a penalty. It's got to do with living with someone who implies, "You could be my sex object." The hetero's boasts do not carry that implication, but the homo's boasts do. You wouldn't quarter a man with a bunch of women. Why, then, would you expect heterosexuals to accept being quartered with a gay?

"I don't see the justice in penalizing one group and not another for what could be simply a free-speech issue..."

Again, it's not a penalty. And it's not the speech -- it's the implication of the specific message, and what it means to an individual's peers. A heterosexual cannot brag about made-up homosexual exploits either. The rule is not unfair, but yes, some people are not suitable to an environment where the rule applies.

Try to think of it this way: It takes exactly two berthing areas to house any number of heterosexual males and females in sexual isolation. How do you solve the same problem once you've thrown homosexuals into the mix? Answer: You can't.

The military is not some kind of jobs program that discriminates against gays. It has a mission to do, and the cost of completing that mission would be unnecessarilly high if it had to offer the same guarantees of incredibly precious and scarce privacy while also accommodating gays.

[Bob Jones, III ESQ]

It's got to do with living with someone who implies, "You could be my sex object."

So, John, are you implying that by virtue of a homosexual saying "I'm gay", he is implying that he's looking to "get some" of all the male soldiers he's quartered with? Simplistic notion at best, downright ignorant at worst.

This is the same argument that was used for years to keep women out of the military, too.

We should keep gays out of the military for the same reason we keep out other undesirables - they make poor soldiers. Everyone knows that a homosexual would rather be decorating than shooting enemies...

[J Green]

John you're advocating that other people should live for the sake of other people. You're doing it a lot lately, the overall quality of your writing has deteriorated. What's going on?

Frankly you're being out right rude. Gays Americans are not ordinary Americans anymore? Since when? Wait, if someone is gay and gayness makes another person uncomfortable it's the gay persons fault and they should be punished, penalized or expelled? I can't believe that someone who advocates so much cancerous disdain for others in general believes they can also advocate freedom for all. The only way you can justify your opinions is through opinionated justifications instead of straight facts, or through the ideals of majority rule which you also denounce when suited. Excuse me but I thought the laws and Constitution protected Americans, not heterosexual Americans?

[John Galt]

Me:
It's got to do with living with someone who implies, "You could be my sex object."

You:
So, John, are you implying that by virtue of a homosexual saying "I'm gay", he is implying that he's looking to "get some" of all the male soldiers he's quartered with? Simplistic notion at best, downright ignorant at worst.

Nope. I'm saying that by virtue of a homosexual identifying himself as such, his fellow servicemen might infer that.

To suggest that's simply "ignorant" of them strikes me as elitist. But more importantly, to disregard their concerns and force them to live in that environment is precisely the sort of captive social engineering that I'm talking about.

This is the same argument that was used for years to keep women out of the military, too.

No. It's the argument which, to this day, requires women to be berthed separately from men. You can't do that with homosexuals.

And the primary argument against women in combat is that they are physically weaker than men, requiring lower standards of physical strength and placing them at a disadvantage compared to male opponents.

The military is not a social engineering laboratory, and it's not a jobs program. It has a mission, and we need the best people doing the job, not "the most diverse." But even if the best person for the job, being gay, requires us to make changes that are costly in other areas, they may still not be a worthwhile bargain.

Is there some reason that Bob Jones, S. Harling, and Wild Bill are all coming from the same IP address?

[Artfldgr]

there is a historical reason for not wanting gays in the military. and it has NOTHING in their choice (directly) as to who their playmates are!!!!!

that is, the military dont care who youre having sex with. right? of course... anyone want to go over the births and stuff during each war? they dont care. they could stop those things and stop diseases by saying no immoral conduct, and keep em in camp. they dont, and they dont care.

so whats the deal?

well, it has to do with spying. in the old days before our new days, gays were closeted. and so gays were targeted by foreign agencies for many reasons.

1) you have something on them
2) they can be easily turned because their population believes they are outside (when we are the only ones that allow such freedoms).

and third... the most important of all... they are used to running double lives. that is they are used to maintaining a front life in which many are kept from the truth... and maintaining a back life separate in which they can maneuver.

to make the leap from front life to back life in spying, is a VERY tiny leap.

you didnt need to train them, they already knew how to manipulate everyone around them.

and then comes another angle. the reverend wright angle. we like to believe that reverend wright and his church believes what he spouts. but there is a bigger view that is possible.

that reverend wright is a filter. that is his church would alienate those who are good... they couldnt sit through it all. and those that would wander in and believe that? they would make good useful idiots.

meanwhile, others could meet in another room while church services were going on, and the world would never know. large monies can be traded through the church AND get tax write off for it. it gives and facilitates connections, while alienating those who would try to be a part of a click to break it up.

this real history of gays in spookville never is part of the discussion. but to any one whose task is to lead AND watch out for those, what isnt real to the average person is a constant problem.

dont ask dont tell shows how much a dual life could hide, and their behavior can facilitate betrayal.

[John Galt]

"John you're advocating that other people should live for the sake of other people."

Not as long as enlistment is voluntary, I'm not. But, once they're in, that is in fact exactly what servicemen are contracted to do -- to live for the sake of the rest of us. And maybe even die.

"Gays Americans are not ordinary Americans anymore?"

Sure they are, and so are diabetics, conscientious objectors, and single parents. The military could accommodate a lot of people it excludes, but at what cost?

Let's look at this another way. Any argument you might use to allow gays to bunk among heterosexuals can be extended to justify why men and women can also be bunked together. What is it you respect, when you separate men and women, that you would disregard by housing gays with straights of the same sex?

There is a social order beyond law and government, and it does not infringe people's liberty to preserve it, as long as that order is not backed with force.

The military position on gays is not homophobic. But it does deal with the reality of limited tolerance for homosexuality among the real people who compose it -- people who give up a lot of other freedoms to serve us all.

Maintaining social order in a state institution by suppressing homosexuality in the ranks is not the same as using the state to suppress homosexuality in the civilian population that institution protects. It's about the needs of the institution to accomplish its mission, not about maximizing opportunities to serve in it.

[Artfldgr]

Bob Jones,
that was a poor attempt to turn johns words on him.

So, John, are you implying that by virtue of a homosexual saying "I'm gay", he is implying that he's looking to "get some" of all the male soldiers he's quartered with? Simplistic notion at best, downright ignorant at worst.

he is not saying that any more than a man allowed to change in a ladies locker room will rape all the women there. when i put it that way, sounds ridiculous. did you realize this?

why do we not let them in there?

because the women dont FEEL right, and so dont behave the same... and so they dont want to feel they are under the eye (or as feminists say abused by the eye).

of course, the SAME thing the other way, thats an affront... why? because that wedges an agenda in that says, yes, lets let gays and hetero hang out together naked.

does it mean that the gay man will attack the others? i doubt it given the weaponry (no pun) around.

it may mean that some men will be uncomfortable.
if you want to call that homophobic fine, then you have to call the women who are afraid misandrists.

the military does not want to solve social problems. it only wants to keep things ok for the time that men and women serve THEN GO BACK TO LIFE.

if you use kinsey as a measure of gays, its a high number at 5% or more... using better studies not from a person with an agenda and who lied and molested children in the name of science, you get 1% 2%...

do you forbid all gays from serving?
that would be the easy solution... no?
2 out of 100 cant serve...
then watch during war time how everyone finds their gay gene (a la klinger).

cant forbid them. so do you let them serve and then segregate them like they did with africans after and during the civil war?

well, given gay pride and such, would a pink or purple corps really help the military? and dont say that it wont, their parades dont match most of their living styles but look who has to make a statement with them.

so you cant segregate them. you cant forbid them. so you let them in and tell them to keep their sexual natures under wrap for the whole of the group.

the point is cohesion. and the gays do not make a good case as to why their need to tell everyone what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is more important than cohesion and security. which they cant do.

and i have also not touched on all the bad that can happen in a war when there is one man in a group who the group is apart from.

he can get fragged.
he can be left alone to handle it himself
paranoia can grow and they can start thinking others are there.

its all about beliefs.

and the military is adapting to beliefs not trying to change them.

and the gays, they are trying to change beliefs. some of the beliefs being valid... (like higher incidence of pedophilism and pederasty. higher incidence of being compromised by foreign entities. higher risk of disease. lower abilty to integrate with other cultures than the US. providing comfort and help to the enemy by giving them a propagandic end).

many of the reasons they dont like are real reasons that cause change of outcome in the world.

science and miltiary are empiricists...
socialists and social engineers are fantasy workers...

do you want to experiment that some jocko refuses to do what they are to do when put with a gay person?

do you want to experiment that some gay person has a histrionic fit?

both are accurate descriptions of some people...

given what happens in war, is it worth a few extra million dead to find out? how about if its your side?

and this is not facetious... one man refusing something can turn everything around.

hitler refused to release the tanks during normandy... changed the whole thing.

[Taryn J.]

As an organization authorized by America, the military ipso facto must follow the same protocol as that of the country. We no longer segregate blacks from whites, despite the racism that is still brooding among many from both sides. America doesn't mandate that anyone change their ethnological or sexual views or proclivities, but rather, simply that we don't infringe upon anyone's rights for reasons regarding race/gender preferences. Why, then, should methods be different in the military? It follows, surely, that DADT should be abolished. Servers in the military aren't babies with conversations on genitalia or sex above their maturity level, or sexual urges out of their control. If they don't like the topic discussed, then they simply do not engage in it, and surely neither party may use force to suppress or incite it. Point blank.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine."

Such a maxim should have significant bearing on any person entering the military anyways, and maybe instead of dabbling in banter about abolishing DADT, we should work on...say..abolishing war? Just a thought.

[John Galt]

Taryn J.:
Why, then, should methods be different in the military?

Because living conditions are different in the military.

It is not "punishment." It is "making the most of what we have." We've been through this. There are lifestyles incompatible with military service -- single parents come to mind, to name only one. It's impossible to make accommodations for all of them, and so they are excluded at the convenience of the military.

When you can justify putting men and women in the same berthing areas, you will have an argument for allowing gays and straights to share one as well.

[zombie zealot]

Currently about 15% of men and 30% of Women are unjustly excluded from the U.S. Military based on weight standards.

Many other millions of seniors and children are cruelly denied the chance to serve due to antiquated notions of what a soldier is supposed to be.

The time for universal conscription is finally here.
We are the soldiers we have been waiting for. Let's Move.

[Owen Macmann]

The concentrated effort to deny these people the right to freely express themselves without fear of backlash so fierce in some cases it is death astounds me, especially on a website that exalts John Galt.

It's not about what is socially comfortably for some people, but what is right. Slavery "worked," selective suffrage "worked," but were they right? No, of course not: they denied people rights which are inherently theirs, by virtue of being people.

If white men cannot be slaves, then black men should not be slaves. If men can vote, then women can vote. And if straights can engage in public displays of affection without fear of termination of employment or much worse, then so, too, must gays be granted this right.

Libertarians who skirt around this issue and make justifications for why freedom is everyone's right (except for groups A, B, and C) are no libertarians at all, but conservatives of the new order - that strange breed that hates so much the new it is willing to revert to the old.

They don't make them [conservatives] like they used to.

[John Galt]

Owen, I suggest you focus on the very real question of why females in the military are housed separately from males. Unless you can justify berthing men and women together, you can't justify berthing gays with straights.

It's the same problem. And I have yet to hear an advocate of gay service either explain why we shouldn't separate men and women or, for that matter, how keeping gays with straights would be any different.

[R Heinlein]

I for one would never go around saying "this is my hooker I hire every Friday for sex and then proceed to kiss her in front of women and children in public. I'd expect to be forcibly removed and banished from a workplace or private business property if I did that.
This would demonstrate my psychological flaws, corruption, error, and unfortunate premises. Govt can rightly get involved when I contract with a 2nd party and it harms a 3rd party.

In a 1968 University lecture Ayn Rand stated that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."

Rand asserted that "the essence of femininity is hero worship — the desire to look up to man" and that "an ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind." In other words, Rand felt that it was part of human nature for a psychologically healthy woman to want to be ruled in sexual matters by a man worthy of ruling her. Rand's view was that "man experiences the essence of his masculinity in the act of romantic dominance; woman experiences the essence of her femininity in the act of romantic surrender."

Let's not pretend that hetero and homo sexuality are not mutually exclusive and competitive with each other in the same way radical islam and capitalism are.

[GJ]

The argument about berthing areas is a valid one that bears addressing. I say this as a gay man, by the way.

However, it doesn't have to be so black and white. Today's military has a far more diverse array of positions in it than it ever did in the past. While it might be true that the logistics of living conditions could be hard to arrange on the 'front line', there is no reason to forbid gay men and women the right to serve at all. The 'berthing area' problem is one that's easily solved if someone is simply transferred to a location which is more well-established and is able to accommodate more diverse lodging solutions. After all, you see this exact solution at play with regards to the positions women are allowed to be employed in in the military. If women were not allowed in the military then the argument against homosexuals would have some validity, but since they are the framework for a solution like this is already in place and the only remaining factor is discomfort with the concept of homosexuality itself.

If a solution like that was adopted then this entire controvery would dissipate. The issue would then no longer be that people are being forced out of their livelihood simply for admitting a truth about themselves. At the same time, if there were logistic problems with lodging the military could still address them by having specifications as to when and where men and women, gay or straight, can cohabit and coexist and when they cannot. But to discharge someone entirely is simply unethical. If a women is not discharged from the military for finding men attractive then why should a gay man be?

Also, to address the issue of gay pride parades - I myself find them overly ostentatious and distasteful and, like I said, I am gay. The kind of things you see with floats in a parade are caricatures, no matter what the purpose of a parade might be. Also, people tend to go a little crazy when they congregate with the purpose of bolstering one another. Look at a football pre-game party, after all... or a bachelor party. The kind of behavior you see in these kinds of situations isn't "normal" - it's an exaggeration. Also, yes, there is an (extremely small) percentage of the gay community that does exhibit the flagrantly flamboyant gay male personality or the 'hyperly aggressive gay female' personality, people who fully conform to the stereotype people have of what it means to be 'gay', but the same can be said for any group of people and is no excuse to vilify an entire group of people.

There are some conservative men, after all, who have murdered gay people in horrificly hateful ways. Are all conservatives, or men, evil? As a conservative gay man, I haven't let an example like that mislead me into making such an extension, but sadly there are many... gay and straight, who let thinking like that influence them.

Most gay people are perfectly ordinary, and due to the fact that they *are* ordinary, people hold the outliers in their minds when they formulate an evaluation of what gay people are like. If you take away the prohibition against simply admitting a basic truth about oneself then the result is not going to be a troupe of flamboyant drag queens parading around with guns, for crying out loud... it's going to be a bunch of people admitting they're gay, and the people around them thinking "wow, I never knew that!".

[John Galt]

The problem, GJ, is that the female solution doesn't work for gays. You can't isolate them in their own berthing area -- you have to give them individual quarters.

If gays are equally qualified, then they are still not an equal value for the military simply because they are more expensive to accommodate. My point is that the military does not need gays to accomplish its mission, combined with the fact that said mission is not to provide jobs.

In the purest sense, the military does not discriminate against gays -- gay Americans are defended by the military exactly like everyone else is. "Discrimination" relies on the premise that it's a jobs program. The military is a duty; not a right. If your lifestyle's not suited to that duty, it doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

[GJ]

The objection, then, being that people would be more prone to get in a relationship on the front line if they were bunking together with other gay men or women?

Okay, a reasonable question, and one that does need to be addressed. But let's leave that one aside for a moment.

How about people employed, say, piloting drones in the US? Is there any reason at all that people can't be employed in *any facet* of the military because they are gay?

There are plenty of people employed by the military who have individual quarters and facilities and are not on any kind of front line.

I won't strenuously object if there are simply policies in *combat areas* that are in place regarding this sort of thing... as there already are for women, for example. But for someone to be discharged from the military under any circumstance, even if they are living alone next to a starbucks in America and their role in the military is going to an office is pure unjustified bigotry.

And that's the current situation.

You say that the military is a duty and not a right, and I can agree with you there if this was simply about pragmatic issues by themselves. But, as the example I mention illustrates... it is not. And whether it's a duty or not, it is still an extension of our government. If it discriminates needlessly in even a *portion* of its structure then it is a problem.

Once this is no longer about a war of ideals (that is... homosexuality is sin and the religious sector VS the big bad atheists and left wingers) and actually about simply finding pragmatic solutions to real problems then I will no longer have any serious objections to more specific regulations that stem from real, specific needs and circumstances.

I think that reasonable solutions to berthing issues can be found, but whether they are found or not has no bearing on the legitimacy of the DADT policy as a whole since it extends far past the 'front line'.

Another great example of ideological wars getting in the way of practical solutions can be found in the gay marriage debate. Hey, I personally agree that the bible makes a lot of specific and hateful statements regarding homosexuality. So I can respect that those who believe in it don't want "Christian marriage" to run in the face of that.

...but why is the government involved in a religious ceremony at *all*? The government should simply bow out and declare that *everyone* simply gets 'civil unions' and leave it to the churches to grant, or deny, marriage ceremonies.

Problem solved! All sides satisfied.

...but of course, nobody on either side of the debate even seriously suggests such a solution because the issue isn't really about fixing anything, it's about waging an ideological war. Each side wants to wield the government as a weapon against the other side in order to enforce each other out of existence.

It's human nature, I suppose.

[John Galt]

I'm definitely onboard with the "separate but equal" vision. My objection is entirely about privacy/modesty issues. It's purely a matter of accommodations. Homosexuality does not disqualify anyone from doing the job, though it does make them unsuitable for some living arrangements.

I can imagine my own reaction to being berthed with a bunch of twenty-year-old girls -- and I can imagine their reaction, too. If someone's going to propose that we admit guys to male quarters who are liable to feel the same things I'd feel staying in female quarters, then I'm just going to insist on the same privacy that's afforded the females -- he needs to find someplace else to bunk. Out of respect for my privacy, just as my male berthing respects the privacy of women.